WTO法律解释的申诉方利益取向  

Complaint's Benefit Orientation of WTO Legal Interpretation

作　　者：陈儒丹[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学,上海201620

出　　处：《现代法学》2013年第5期161-170,共10页Modern Law Science

基　　金：2012年度国家社科基金青年项目"WTO争端解决机制的申诉方利益取向与对策研究"(12CFX110);2013年度上海市教委科研创新项目"中国参与WTO诉讼模式改革"(13YS090);2013年度中国法学会部级课题"中国参加WTO诉讼模式改革"(CLS(2013)D228)

摘　　要：WTO争端解决机构的"法官"经常面临如何解释WTO规则的棘手难题。从表面上看,无论是WTO争端解决规则还是WTO争端解决机构作出的司法解释都强调应该秉持中立态度。但事实上,专家组或者上诉机构的"法官"在解释WTO法时并非完全中立,而是存在大量司法造法行为,在解释法律时常采用法律实用主义的方法,扩大WTO协定的涵盖范围,深化国际贸易自由,使诉讼结果有利于申诉方。一方面,有效解释原则为主、疑义从轻解释原则为辅的解释格局主导模糊性WTO规则的解释;另一方面,对被诉方据以辩解的国内法解释的效力进行严格限制。这些现象的发生可以用法律不完备理论、囚徒困境理论、国际贸易自行车理论和法官最高效用理论等进行解释。The 'judges'of WTO Dispute Settlement Body are often faced with the difficulty in interpreting the WTO rules.At first glance,both the judicial interpretation and the WTO dispute settlement rules emphasize that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body should uphold a neutral attitude towards interpreting the law.But,in fact,neither panelists nor 'judges'of the Appellate Body uphold neutrality entirely when interpreting WTO laws.Rather,there are a lot of judicial law-making behaviors.Legal pragmatism is often adopted in the interpretation of the law.The scope of the WTO Agreement is expanded.The freedom of international trade is deepened.The outcome of the proceedings is conducive to the complaining party.Concretely,it consists of two aspects: on the one hand,the'principle of effectiveness'plays a main role with the'principle of in dubio mitius'supplemented in interpretation of dominant ambiguity of interpretation of the ambiguous WTO rules;On the other hand,the effectiveness of the domestic law interpretation which are used to justify the disputed practices by the respondent party is strictly limited.The occurrence of these phenomena can be explained in the incomplete law theory,the prisoner's dilemma theory,international trade bicycle theory and judges' highest utility theory.

关 键 词：WTO 有效解释原则 疑义从轻解释原则 国内法解释 申诉方利益取向 

分 类 号：D90[政治法律—法学理论]